If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

It seems to me that the Foucault Pendulum would disqualify the "Still Earth" and "Concave Earth" model while at the time bolstering the Ball Earth models. Since the pendulum verifies Earth rotation, it would also appear to do away with the need to entertain spiraling light from a still cosmos. I haven't read much of the "Gravity" thread but would agree that gravity doesn't work like we expect or have been lead to believe.

With the Foucault Pendulum, you can even calculate your latitude on the Ball Earth and deduce which hemisphere that you are currently on so it would also seem to do away with the flat earth theory.

Latitude = arcsin (24hours) divided by T

"Change of direction of the plane of swing of the pendulum in angle per sidereal day as a function of latitude. The pendulum rotates in the anticlockwise (positive) direction on the southern hemisphere and in the clockwise (negative) direction on the northern hemisphere. The only points where the pendulum returns to its original orientation after one day are the poles and the equator."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Xious wrote:It seems to me that the Foucault Pendulum would disqualify the "Still Earth" and "Concave Earth" model while at the time bolstering the Ball Earth models. Since the pendulum verifies Earth rotation, it would also appear to do away with the need to entertain spiraling light from a still cosmos. I haven't read much of the "Gravity" thread but would agree that gravity doesn't work like we expect or have been lead to believe.

With the Foucault Pendulum, you can even calculate your latitude on the Ball Earth and deduce which hemisphere that you are currently on so it would also seem to do away with the flat earth theory.

Latitude = arcsin (24hours) divided by T

"Change of direction of the plane of swing of the pendulum in angle per sidereal day as a function of latitude. The pendulum rotates in the anticlockwise (positive) direction on the southern hemisphere and in the clockwise (negative) direction on the northern hemisphere. The only points where the pendulum returns to its original orientation after one day are the poles and the equator."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

I think this is a very common misconception. In fact, the pendulum does not demonstrate any particular thing at all, since museum folks have to restart the ball in the "correct" place in the "correct" manner just to have the system be of any use. In addition, it depends upon an understanding of what gravity is, and since the two understandings taken from the same model are used to prove one other, it isn't a full exploration of the topic.

Careful of quoting Wikipedia before doing any research.

And especially since that is one of three majorly undebated "proofs" we are given in grade school (including the pendulum, wind patterns and star observations — importantly unquestioned in school, unlike my presentation in the previous post) it seems embarrassing that you would post this and think it's any good.

A rotating and spherical Earth do seem logical when looking at solar and lunar eclipses, at Earth itself, at the other celestial bodies, etc. If the Earth is not a spherical object, then how are the curved shadows on the Moon generated in case of a lunar eclipse (Earth between Sun and Moon)?

- If the Earth is not spherical, what produces this curved band between the clearly lit lower left and the reddish shadow?- the reddish shadowy part is still lit by sunlight shining "around" the Earth

Also:

- the Sun and Moon are clearly spherical objects and planets with a telescope are also spherical. What would make the Earth the exception?- if Earth is not a spherical object, how is the puzzle of plate tectonics solved? Or in other words; how to 'puzzle' the pieces of continental and oceanic crust together on a non-spherical object?

A rotating Earth also seems completely logical to me. If not, how do we produce time zones? How can it be day in China when in the US it is still night? If Earth is static and only the Sun is moving (and all other celestial bodies with it), then what about seasonal variations? The equinoxes?

- flight trajectories are typically curved (due to the sphericity and rotation of the Earth), would that aaaalll be fake just to "prove" the "false" notion that Earth is both spherical and rotating? Seems implausible...

Look, folks. Will you actually show that you've read and understood the thread before you ask the same old questions about the model you believe in?

Hell, it would be nice if you demonstrated that you actually just read my last post on the previous page of the thread.

You apparently didn't even notice that the Moon's light doesn't actually match the Sun's position, as I pointed out earlier in the thread.

I won't answer rhetorical questions like you have written them. My point isn't that anyone has the answer — only that many of us have been so wrapped up in a self-referential model that we are no longer capable of looking at the data that doesn't fit — which is a great selection of fascinating observations, experiments and their results.

I urge you to go back through the entire thread and report back something you actually learned before you come charging at one single point that you don't want to ask deep questions with, which is the idea that a perfectly functional model is still largely unknown. I bet you will have learned something if you do read it. But before you do:

flight trajectories are typically curved (due to the sphericity and rotation of the Earth)

Citation on and explanation of this, please. "Typically curved" means what, exactly? Because you already suppose the Earth is curved?

I found this video very interesting and just figured I'd share it. It has nothing to do with media fakery but this is "The Living Room" (A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest)

In this demonstration, you will see how to calculate your latitude as well as deduce which hemisphere you are currently located on, using only a Foucault Pendulum. What is a Foucault Pendulum? It is a device that was first created to show that the Earth is rotating. Since an object in motion tends to stay in motion, once the pendulum ball is pulled to one side and released, the pendulum should simply swing back and forth repeatedly until it runs out of momentum. However, since the Earth is rotating beneath it, the ball's back and forth trajectory is altered as shown in the demonstration video.

The experimenter has built his own pendulum for use in this video.

If you wish to skip the intro and get right to the calculations... forward it to about 2:19.

"Air resistance damps the oscillation, so some Foucault pendulums in museums incorporate an electromagnetic or other drive to keep the bob swinging; others are restarted regularly, sometimes with a launching ceremony as an added attraction."

I find the Foucault Pendulum and the Coriolis Effect to both be very questionable in nature. I think this is an interesting subject for further study and is one I have been working on for a few months.This is why I came across the mythic predecessor to the V1 and V2 Rockets, the Paris Gun.The pendulums' s motion does not seem to be what one would expect. I'd think we'd expect to see the pendulum remain at a constant slant rather than describing a spirograph like design. But that's me.

"The Paris Gun was a weapon like no other, but its capabilities are not known with full certainty. This is due to the weapon's apparent total destruction by the Germans in the face of the Allied offensive. Figures stated for the weapon's size, range, and performance varied widely depending on the source — not even the number of shells fired is certain. With the discovery (in the 1980s) and publication (in the Bull and Murphy book) of a long note on the gun written shortly before his death in 1926 by Dr. Fritz Rausenberger, who was in charge of its development at Krupp, the details of its design and capabilities were considerably clarified."

"The Paris gun was used to shell Paris at a range of 120 km (75 mi). The distance was so far that the Coriolis effect — the rotation of the Earth — was substantial enough to affect trajectory calculations. The gun was fired at an azimuth of 232 degrees (west-southwest) from Crépy-en-Laon, which was at a latitude of 49.5 degrees North."

The Coriolis Effect and the Foucault Pendulum are put forth as solid evidence that the Earth rotates on its axis. I think these claims and experiments deserve further scrutiny.

If the Earth is spinning, then the centrifugal force at the Equator is in the opposite direction to that of gravity. The former pushes one away from the surface of the Earth, while gravity pulls it towards the surface. As one moves towards to the poles this relationship changes, so one would expect gravity to be greater at the poles than at the equator. This is also where the global Coriolis Effect, seems to me,fails as an explanation for weather patterns and the like.

When one considers the mechanics of centripetal force, the global Coriolis makes no sense, neither does the Foucault Pendulum. Or so it seems to me at this point in my research.

"Bottom line: if you release a helium balloon on the ground, it should rise forever! It will float up until Earth's atmosphere dovetails with the interplanetary medium, then float up and out of the solar system, then reach interstellar space and float out of the plane of the galaxy like the bubbles blown by supernova, and ultimately settle in one of the voids of large-scale cosmic structure."

Another problem, helium and hydrogen are supposed to be free from gravity's power, according to the mainstream model. A helium filled balloon could then be used to conduct an experiment to show the Earth's rotation. The balloon should exhibit the 'ficticious' Coriolis Force like in this MIT video, as the Earth continues to turn in one direction and the balloon goes off on a straight line relative to that direction:

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_XJp77-mk

The Coriolis Force is just like centrifugal force, both are considered 'fictitious', both are conditioned on another force being applied or being lost. In the case of the ball in the video above, once the ball is thrown, its velocity is fixed and it travels in a straight line relative to the moving apparatus. The force being lost, or being no longer applied, was the motion of the apparatus. This is exactly what we'd expect to see if a rocket were to attain 'escape velocity' and why I find Newton's reasoning for orbits, flawed. In the case of a ball tied at the end of a twirling string, the centripetal force due to the string creates the centrifugal effect we witness, or in the case of a kitchen mixer, the sides of the container act to stop the matter inside from flying off in what would be a straight line.

Last edited by ProperGander on October 8th, 2015, 12:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Since we observe many things spinning and warping both around the world we inhabit and in the observable heavens which we cannot physically reach, we may also wonder if light and electromagnetism doesn't also have a helixical, spiral or wave pattern of some kind that is exaggerated or which grows depending on conditions. As we witness magnetism and electromagnetism having spin, direction and amplitude, we might suggest that larger versions warp the further away it is. It's possible that while the cosmos are only moving as much as we observe them to move from the standpoint of someone racing across the 40,000 km at 1667 km/h (or roughly transiting the “globe” in 24 hours) — that is to say not moving — the light from a still or semi-still or even orbiting Sun (as per the Tycho-Shack model, which I am a fan of because of its elegance) in such a case takes a certain time to “spiral in”, while the stars take a different time, and so forth. This would mean the star positions and the Milky Way are more than illusions — they would be shifted from their actual place based on their distance from us and the additional time it takes for the light to come in doing its thing.

However, the stars and cosmos seem to move so perfectly with each other, as if it were merely our perspective that's changing, and so such an idea would have to take this into account. Could it be that, like distant objects that appear to merge together, distant electromagnetic qualities become less distinguishable as well? Could “star twinkle” not purely be from “space dust/debris” but from some pulsing and measurable electromagnetic pattern?

I think you are on the right track with this. An exploration of other models based on electromagnetic and ionized gas theory and (more importantly) experiment is something that is lacking. I'd suggest researching into the history of electricity all the way back to the beginning. As with most of these subjects, what we have been told is not the same as what one reads and there are many mistakes and misconceptions here as well. For instance, Nikola Tesla's criticism of the work of the Relativists, Hertz and Maxwell is interesting and telling. Lucky for us Nikola Tesla ended up having plenty of time on his hands to give interviews and to write his own autobiography and there are a good number of articles available online.

Another example, Einstein's forgotten 'pro' 1920 Ether speech. "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."see http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/hist ... ether.html

This video might be of interest, if you haven't come across it. Its long and the sound is not as good as one would like, but its an excellent place to start or so it was for me.

Instead of a motor, and the Earth spinning due to the electromotive force, we have a moving field around a motionless Earth. Please Note: The Global North Pole is actually the magnetic South.The Sun and the heavenly bodies move with the field direction, clockwise, or east to west, as shown in the illustration and as observed.The Earth's magnetic field and the polar aurora's could be evidence that the Earth is an electromagnet The Celestial Sphere could be a projection from within the motionless Earth. Perhaps the heavenly bodies are nothing more than the result of ionized gases in our heavens. Overlapping fields of force. The Moon could be some kind of x-ray of the Earth itself, projected onto the ionosphere. The Earth itself might be the source of the energy we see 'transformed' in the heavens. Gravity might be no more than a gas pressure type effect due to alternating currents of 'electrostatic' energy. The Earth itself could be the source of our atmosphere. The atmosphere the medium for light. Galileo and Newton and the rest didn't know much about electromagnetism when they concocted their theories. It seems easy to begin to see that an electric universe is something well worth considering. I'd only point out that its more of a 'electrochemical' Universe than not.

"In astronomy and navigation, the celestial sphere is an imaginary sphere of arbitrarily large radius, concentric with Earth. All objects in the observer's sky can be thought of as projected upon the inside surface of the celestial sphere, as if it were the underside of a dome or a hemispherical screen. The celestial sphere is a practical tool for spherical astronomy, allowing observers to plot positions of objects in the sky when their distances are unknown or unimportant"

"There is matter spread all through the Universe, it is just spread very, very, very, very thin. The average density of gas in our Milky Way galaxy is about one atom per cubic centimeter. This is a much better vacuum than is obtained in a laboratory, but when integrated over the Galaxy, comes out to quite a lot of mass. This gas is mostly hydrogen (~90%), and helium (~9%), and less than one percent everything else. The gas between galaxies is even thinner, but there is probably something there (it hasn't been measured, though). These elements are in the Earth because they were present when the gas cloud that formed our solar system collapsed to form the Sun and the planets."

For the benefit of those deceived by the NWO's recent "alternative" media (mostly YouTube kitsch and forum astroturfing) fake-science disinformation campaign, it's the angle of incidence of the Sun's rays that causes the climate difference between Earth's equator and poles.

From the Wikipedia article "Effect of sun angle on climate":

"The amount of heat energy received at any location on the globe is a direct effect of sun angle... as the angle at which sunlight strikes the Earth varies by location... When sunlight shines on the earth at a lower angle (sun closer to the horizon), the energy of the sunlight is spread over a larger area, and is therefore weaker than if the sun is higher overhead and the energy is concentrated on a smaller area. (See Figure 1)... Trigonometry tells us that the sine of a 30° angle is 1/2, whereas the sine of a 90° angle is 1. Therefore, the sunbeam hitting the ground at a 30° angle spreads the same amount of light over twice as much area... Consequently, the amount of light falling on each square mile is only half as much... The Sunbeam entering at the shallower angle must also travel twice as far through the Earth's atmosphere, which reflects some of the energy back into space."

The main image at the linked page shows the sunlit hemisphere of the Earth at a given time (default = now). It also allows you to estimate the position of the Sun in the sky for each location on the ground.

The distribution of daylight shown in this image is based on the spherical model of the Earth. The only way to get this distribution of daylight is on a spherical Earth with a very distant Sun. Competing theories, i.e. those claiming a non-spherical Earth and/or a near location for the Sun, will predict a different distribution of daylight than what is shown.

So far, all observations - conducted many times a day by regular people worldwide - have confirmed the sphere-model predictions in the image at the linked site.

I just feel compelled to tell you that your contributions on this forum have a 'soothing effect' on me. Your no-nonsense, down-to-earth (pun intended) thinking & reasoning are like a breath of fresh air - in a decaying madhouse contaminated with the foul gases of flatulent patients.

Painterman wrote:Not a pretty situation, but it beats being part of the madness.

It sure does, Painterman, it sure does.

I just noticed with dismay that one of the rare 'voices of reason' over at Flatologist.com* has been 'weeded out' - *sigh*...

And no - 'Clueseau' was not me (I only ever post on the internets as 'simonshack') - nor anyone I know of. Just someone who consistently posted thoughtful / no-nonsense stuff over there. Let's hope that this peculiar 'level 3 verification' will sort things out.